IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: January 30^th, 2025 Pronounced on: February 25^th, 2025 M/s Aakriti Construction and Development Limited and another .....Petitioners Versus M/s Aggarwal Shuttering Place .....Respondent

2. CRR No.425 of 2023 (O&M)

M/s Aakriti Construction and Development Limited and another .....Petitioners Versus M/s Aggarwal Shuttering Place .....Respondent

3. CRR No.627 of 2023 (O&M)

M/s Aakriti Construction and Development Limited and another .....Petitioners Versus M/s Aggarwal Shuttering Place and another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL Argued by: Mr. Vishal Garg Narwana, Mr. Rahul Gupta, Mr. Aman Mittal, Mr. Vikas Barala, Mr. Vazir Singh Mor, and Mr. Minku Sangwan, Advocates, for the petitioners.

Mr. Hitesh Chauhan, Advocate for Mr. Suresh Kumar Kaushik, Advocate for the respondent.

Mr. Rajat Gautam, Additional Advocate General, Haryana.

MANJARI NEHRU KAUL , J .

The petitioners have approached this Court seeking a modification of the sentence imposed upon him in three separate cases arising out of complaints under Section 138 of The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘N.I. Act’). The limited relief sought by the petitioner is that the sentences imposed in these cases should run concurrently rather than consecutively.

2. The crux of the matter revolves around a rental arrangement between the petitioner and the complainant for shuttering material. According to the complaint, the petitioners have been renting shuttering material from the complainant since 2008, and by ₹

10.01.2012, an outstanding amount of 30 lakh was due. In purported settlement of this liability, the petitioner issued four post dated cheques ₹

each for 7,50,000/- dated 10.01.2012, 10.02.2012, 10.03.2012 and

10.04.2012 drawn on Allahabad Bank, Panchkula.

3. Upon presentation, the cheques were dishonoured as follows:

•

Cheque dated 10.01.2012 was dishonoured on 27.01.2012.

•

Cheque dated 10.03.2012 was dishonoured on 07.04.2012.

•

Cheque dated 10.04.2012 was dishonoured on 04.07.2012.

4. This led to the complainant filing three separate complaints under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. Upon trial, the learned JMIC, Panchkula, convicted the petitioners and sentenced petitioner No.2 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for eight months in each case along ₹

with a fine of 7,50,000/- per case.

5. Both the petitioner and the complainant filed appeals before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula. During the pendency of these appeals, the petitioner and the complainant reportedly entered into a compromise, and the petitioner made a ₹

payment of 5 lakh in pursuance of the settlement. However, the petitioner did not make a statement regarding the compromise before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula. Consequently, vide judgment dated 27.11.2017, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula, dismissed petitioners’ appeal, whereas the appeal of respondent was partly allowed and enhanced the petitioner's sentence to ₹

one year of simple imprisonment and a fine of 7,50,000/- in each case. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset submits that he does not press the revision petitions on merits but restricts his prayer to seeking a direction that the sentences imposed in all three cases run concurrently. He contends that: (i) the dishonoured cheques stem from a single financial transaction between the same parties, i.e. the settlement of rental arrears of shuttering material.

(ii) all the cheques were issued on the same date and in furtherance of the same obligation.

(iii) the conviction, therefore, arises from a single transaction, and imposing consecutive sentences would be harsh and disproportionate.

7. In support of this contention, learned counsel relies on the judgment of Hon‘ble the Supreme Court in V.K. Bansal Versus State of Haryana and others 2013 (3) RCR (Civil) 1052, wherein the Court held that when multiple convictions arise from the same transacti